Hey Q9!!! Calling Q9!.....

[gamebirdboy]

Quote:
Grant and Burnside threw waves of men at the Confederates and got them all killed. Lee didn't have men to waste for the last 2 years of the war. Oh, and the Confederacy only fought 2 battles in northern territory...

Picketts charge was one of the biggest wastes of men. Lee also knew how to throw men into a battle that couldn't be won or didn't he read that battlefield? Have you ever been to Gettysburgh and seen the battlefield, and walked the field that Pickett charged? Uphill, outnumbered against a dug position? Lee thought his "boys" couldn't loose. Grant was a leader of a bigger army and could afford to loose men in sometimes great numbers. It's actually classic military tactics............ D day, Tarawa right a bell? there are many many more. Once again the point is who wins. The south had no chance from day one and to continue to debate woulda coulda shoulda is a waste of time.

Steve

Steve

Poor coordination caused it, the same as what happened the previous day. Not Lee's fault at all.

 

[Spookwriter]

Quote:
He (he who?) had no right to them (them who?) together?

Sorry I have to ask, but I'm trying to get caught up on the lastest postings,
and I'm not sure which post this is in response too?

 

[gamebirdboy]

Should have quoted it, but Lincoln didn't have a say in it. The South had the right to leave and Lincoln didn't respect it...

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Guess why a significant majority of the Indians threw in their lot with the CSA? By a democratic vote, I might add. In fact, the very last confederate general to surrender in the war was a Cherokee Indian, General Stand Watie.

that is complicated. first a majority of them did not join any side, many of the thousands of tribes were still westward fighting for what little they had, only the tribes that lived among the official states joined sides, and only some of them.

(there are far more tribes than Cherokee and Iroquois, they were just the tribes that assimilated well enough at the time to get the most attention in civil war history.)

the ones that did join, the majority of them joined the south because they knew if the south succeeded the whole country would be unstable and they would have half a chance to get their lands back. (though that is only an oversimplified version of the tip of the complexed reasoning for why certain Native groups joined the war

That's not the reason the Cherokee gave.

The Confederacy actually promised them their own state, rather than just reservations. Whether they would have followed through with it is obviously doubtful, but considering the contributions Indians, especially the Cherokee, made to the Confederacy, there is a possibility that they would have done so. The clear-cut reason that the Cherokee gave... well, I'll quote them. The following are selections from the Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes
Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the
Confederate States of America. Yes, the title really is that long.

"But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions. The number of the Confederate States has increased to eleven, and their Government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of 200,000 men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is founded, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties."

"But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.
Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past, to complain of some of the Southern States, they cannot but feel that their interests and their destiny are inseparably connected with those of the South. The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government."

The entire document can be found here - read it for yourself: http://www.civilwarhome.com/cherokeecauses.htm

Do pay close attention to that last paragraph. The one that cites slavery. Notice the other, much larger complaints - "And its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government."

 

[Spookwriter]

Hiram Ulysses Grant.

Robert Edward Lee.

Two men, two great men who were more alike than they were
different.

Both West Point men, although at different years perhaps having
the same teachers, they were known to each other before the Civil
War, having served together in the Mexican War. Grant served
under Lee at that time.

Each served their country with a dedication that can not be faulted.
Robert E. Lee fought to divide the Union, U.S. Grant fought to save
the Union. Was it a war solely about slavery? Both of these men
owned slaves.

Lincoln offered the position of Commander of the Union Army to Lee
as the war first began. Lee resigned from the US military, to serve rather
his home state of Virginia, and it's new goverment, the Confederate States
of America. This was his home, his land. In a war that pitted brother against
brother, Robert E. Lee fought for his home. Perhaps had his home been in a
Northern state, his views mayof been different. But I understand a man's
desire to fight for his home.

Grant had resigned from the army life well before the civil war began. But the
same belief that led Robert E. Lee to fight for his home lived in Grant. Home
for U.S. Grant was the United States of America. His country...his home.

Just as Robert E. Lee, Grant believed his country was worth fighting for.

Two friends, yet on opposite sides, fighting for something they believed in so
strongly. As leaders, they each in their turn sent an unknown number of
soldiers to their death.

Such is war.

But those deaths were not in vain. Not then, and not today. For each of those
soldiers gave their life fighting for a country they believed in...a cause greater
than theirself. Their death would only be in vain if we fell to understand that.

Many are buried at Arlington National Cemetery....Arlington House, once the
planation home of Robert E. Lee's own family, actually owned by his wife.

U.S. Grant or as Mary Todd Lincoln called him, the butcher, carried no malice
towards the South. And they, no malice towrds him.

When Grant died at the age of 63, his pallbearers were the men he fought with,
and against. Former Confederate soldiers, once his opponents in war, respected
him enough to carry him to the final grave.

As I've said before, to continue to refight the civil war is pointless. Without merit.
We can not change history. But we can look at it, study it, and try to learn from these
men...these great men. On both sides.

Time has proven to us that there was right and wrong on both sides. And that is
something that continues yet today. There is still both wrong and right in our
goverment. And we need to strive to understand that....to work together as a people,
as a nation, to do the the things we feel to be right.

Spook

 

[Spookwriter]

For Q9 and TM...the most recent poll results I could find online
on a state leaving the union.

A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans
believed that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede
and become an independent republic

22%...less than 1 in every 4 people polled.

Not quite the majority opinion.

 

[TM Chickens]

Quote:
Wow, nice. That's a lot more than I would have thought.

 

[Spookwriter]

Let me see if I can post the article up...I really dislike quoting something
as a fact without showing a source. Just as 43% or 10% of the south owned
slaves...runs in my mind, it was 43% with 10% owing more than 100 slaves...
something along those lines. But I would have to research it to find the actual
numbers.

anyway...



Jul 23, 2008
By None

Culture, None
<i>Middlebury Institute/Zogby Poll:</i> One in Five Americans Believe States Have the Right to SecedeUTICA, New York -One in five American adults - 22% - believe that any state or region has the right to "peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic," a new Middlebury Institute/Zogby International telephone poll shows.

I believe any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic:

Agree
22%

Disagree
73%

Not sure
5%


The level of support for the right of secession was consistent in every region in the country, though the percentage was slightly higher in the South (26%) and the East (24%). The figures were also consistent for every age group, but backing was strongest among younger adults, as 40% among those age 18 to 24 and 24% among those age 25 to 34 agreed states and regions have secession rights.

Broken down by race, the highest percentage agreeing with the right to secede was among Hispanics (43%) and African-Americans (40%). Among white respondents, 17% said states or regions should have the right to peaceably secede.

I would support a secessionist effort in my state:

Agree
18%

Disagree
72%

Not sure
10%


Politically, liberal thinkers were much more likely to favor the right to secession for states and regions, as 32% of mainline liberals agreed with the concept. Among the very liberal the support was only slightly less enthusiastic - 28% said they favored such a right. Meanwhile, just 17% of mainline conservatives thought it should exist as an option for states or regions of the nation.

Asked whether they would support a secessionist movement in their own state, 18% said they would, with those in the South most likely to say they would back such an effort. In the South, 24% said they would support such an effort, while 15% in the West and Midwest said the same. Here, too, younger adults were more likely than older adults to be supportive - 35% of those under age 30 would support secession in their state, compared to just 17% of those over age 65. Among African Americans, 33% said they would support secession, compared to just 15% of white adults. The more education a respondent had, the less likely they were to support secession - as 38% of those with less than a high school diploma would support it, compared to just 10% of those with a college degree.

To gauge the extent to which support for secession comes from a sense that the nation's current system is not working, a separate question was asked about agreement that "the United States' system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections." Nearly half of respondents agreed with this statement, with 27% who somewhat agree and 18% who strongly agree.

I believe the United States' system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections:

Agree
44%

Disagree
53%

Not sure
3%


The telephone poll, conducted by Zogby International, included 1,209 American adult respondents. It was conducted July 9-13, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 2.9 per cent.

The sponsor of the poll was the Middlebury Institute, a think tank for "the study of separatism, secession, and self-determination," based in Cold Spring, NY. Their website address is: MiddleburyInstitute.org.


For content, contact: Kirkpatrick Sale, Director, Middlebury Institute, at 845-265-3158 or [email protected]

For methodology, contact: Fritz Wenzel, 315-624-0200 ext. 229 or 419-205-0287 or [email protected]

For a detailed methodological statement on this survey, please visit:

http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.cfm?ID=1324

 

[KristyHall]

Quote:
that is complicated. first a majority of them did not join any side, many of the thousands of tribes were still westward fighting for what little they had, only the tribes that lived among the official states joined sides, and only some of them.

(there are far more tribes than Cherokee and Iroquois, they were just the tribes that assimilated well enough at the time to get the most attention in civil war history.)

the ones that did join, the majority of them joined the south because they knew if the south succeeded the whole country would be unstable and they would have half a chance to get their lands back. (though that is only an oversimplified version of the tip of the complexed reasoning for why certain Native groups joined the war

That's not the reason the Cherokee gave.

The Confederacy actually promised them their own state, rather than just reservations. Whether they would have followed through with it is obviously doubtful, but considering the contributions Indians, especially the Cherokee, made to the Confederacy, there is a possibility that they would have done so. The clear-cut reason that the Cherokee gave... well, I'll quote them. The following are selections from the Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes
Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the
Confederate States of America. Yes, the title really is that long.

"But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions. The number of the Confederate States has increased to eleven, and their Government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of 200,000 men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is founded, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties."

"But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.
Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past, to complain of some of the Southern States, they cannot but feel that their interests and their destiny are inseparably connected with those of the South. The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government."

The entire document can be found here - read it for yourself: http://www.civilwarhome.com/cherokeecauses.htm

Do pay close attention to that last paragraph. The one that cites slavery. Notice the other, much larger complaints - "And its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government."

re-read my post, i said that was an oversimplified explanation to a small part of a larger issue. I did that to avoid having to go into a long winded explanation such as your post above. btw, even your over-sized explanation only shows one side, and in itself is still over simplified.

seriously, if you weren't so overzealous, more people would be apt to agree with you or even just listen to you.

 

[FarmerJamie]

Quote:
I've been following this thread. It and this analogy really has my head spinning. The fort was federal property, I do believe, not in South Carolina. I think the analogy that's more appropriate, is the the neighbor's house is close by, sitting a little higher than yours. You announce he must leave his house, because you don't want him being able to see in your yard. Just because he doesn't comply, doesn't give you the right to open fire on him.

Q9, I respect your opinions, but your bias does slip through that dilutes your arguments, such as the "butcher" Grant comment. Grant did the raw calculus, as unchivalrous as it may be, numbers and material were on his side. If I recall correctly, Gen Lee also sent his boys forward in a number of reckless assaults in several battles that caused his command to take excessive, unneeded losses.

I'm also curious about the Longstreet "traitorous" comment regarding Gettysburg, too.

Interesting discussion here, I'm trying to be respectful.

That's one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. Fort Sumter was a military fort WELL within South Carolina - if you don't think it was a real, immediate threat, you clearly have never been to Charleston. I've stood on the Battery on the Charleston Peninsula, seen Sumter, and I can assure you that the fort could have easily blockaded Charleston's harbor if it had been left to the Yankees.
...

I'm sorry you feel that way. The previous analogy that was bantied about here was that it was like the South woke up to an intruder in their house. I think that analogy doesn't hold water, but it sure evokes strong emotions. The fort was there before April 1861. I have been to Charleston, and have stood in the fort, too. Having been physically there or not should not be relevant to the point. The money in Charleston didn't mind a federal fort there when they thought it would protect them from European navies. The Southern leadership miscalculated Lincoln's conviction to preserve the Union.